Filed: Sep. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MADELINE COX ARLEO , District Judge . This matter having been opened to the Court by Petitioner's filing of (1) a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause). 1 Petitioner has also filed (2) an Application for an Order to Show Cause seeking his release from custody or
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MADELINE COX ARLEO , District Judge . This matter having been opened to the Court by Petitioner's filing of (1) a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause). 1 Petitioner has also filed (2) an Application for an Order to Show Cause seeking his release from custody or a..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MADELINE COX ARLEO, District Judge.
This matter having been opened to the Court by Petitioner's filing of (1) a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause).1 Petitioner has also filed (2) an Application for an Order to Show Cause seeking his release from custody or a bond hearing and other relief. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) It appearing that:
Respondents have entered an appearance in this matter and provided the Court with the following information regarding the basis for Mr. Efendic's detention and his request for a bond hearing:
Mr. Efendic overstayed his visa and was placed into pre-order discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on July 13, 2018. He requested a bond hearing before the Immigration Court on August 13, 2018. Today the Immigration Court set his bond hearing to take place at 1:00 pm on September 27, 2018. (ECF Nos. 5-6.) In light of Mr. Efendic's scheduled bond hearing, which may moot Petitioner's habeas challenge to his unlawful detention, the Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter, and will direct the parties to update the Court in writing with the result of the bond hearing by Friday, September 28, 2018. At that time, the Court will determine if any further action is necessary with respect to Petitioner's habeas claim challenging his unlawful detention and his request for an Order to Show Cause.2
In this action, Petitioner also seeks damages for violations of his civil rights while in custody at Bergen County Jail.3 (ECF No. 1, Verified Petition at 29.) Because Petitioner may not bring civil rights claims for damages together with his habeas petition challenging the unlawfulness of his detention, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the civil rights claims alleging excessive force (Fourth Cause of Action) against all Defendants. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (explaining that "if a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other than immediate or more speedy release—the traditional purpose of habeas corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy"); Marine v. Quintana, 347 F. App'x. 736 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming that money damages are not available in a habeas action); see also Federal Habeas Manual § 13:4 ("it must be remembered that habeas corpus is not a compensatory remedy. `The object is not to make whole someone who has suffered a loss; it is to determine whether a person is being confined in violation of basic norms of legality.'")(citation omitted); Burnam v Marberry, 313 F. App'x 455. 456 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2009) (criticizing the District Court for permitting Petitioner to amend habeas action to include civil claims); Forrest v. Sauers, No. 3:CV-13-0067, 2013 WL 3097569, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 8, 2013) ("Mr. Forrest has presented a hybrid action sounding in both civil rights and habeas. He cannot do so in a singular habeas action as his conditions of confinement claims seek monetary damages and do not call into question his sentence or conviction. As such, they do not sound in habeas and must be pursued in a § 1983 action."). The dismissal of this claim is without prejudice, and Petitioner is free to file a civil rights complaint in a new action with the appropriate filing fee or an application to proceed inforrnapauperis.4
IT IS, THEREFORE, on this 18 day of Sept, 2018.
ORDERED that in light of Petitioner's scheduled bond hearing, the Court directs the parties to notify the Court in writing as to the outcome that bond hearing by Friday. September 28, 2018; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter and will determine if any further action is necessary with respect to Petitioner's habeas claim challenging his unlawful detention and his request for an Order to Show Cause; and it is further
ORDERED that the Fourth Cause of Action is dismissed as to all Defendants for the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order; the dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner's filing of a new civil action with the appropriate filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis; and it is further
ORDERED that, in light of the dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action, the Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss Respondents Officer Kissaone and Bergen County Jail; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Petitioner at the address on file.
